Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario
B E T W E E N:
Monique-Claire Hebert Applicant
-and-
Plaza Ontario Marble and Tile Inc. Respondent
INTERIM DECISION
Adjudicator: Dawn J. Kershaw
Date: August 10, 2016
Citation: 2016 HRTO 1058
Indexed As: Hebert v. Plaza Ontario Marble and Tile Inc
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS
Monique-Claire Hebert, Applicant
Jamie-Lee LeBlanc, Representative
Introduction
1This is an Application filed under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), alleging reprisal and discrimination with respect to employment because of disability.
2This Interim Decision is issued in response to the applicant’s request for an adjournment of the hearing scheduled for September 19, and 20, 2016 in Windsor, apparently on consent of the respondent.
3The Notice of Hearing was sent to the parties on May 6, 2016.
4The Tribunal’s Practice Direction on Scheduling states as follows about adjournments and adjournment requests:
If the parties are able to agree on alternative dates, one party must advise the HRTO Registrar in writing within 14 days of the Notice of Confirmation of Hearing. The HRTO will make every effort to schedule the hearing for dates provided by the parties. […]
The HRTO discourages requests for adjournment outside the 14-day period to request rescheduling of a mediation or hearing, described above. Requests for adjournment, particularly at the last minute, are a significant impediment to fair and timely access to justice. Therefore, the HRTO will only grant adjournments in extraordinary circumstances such as illness of a party, witness or representative. Absent exceptional circumstances, the HRTO will not grant adjournments, even when all parties consent.
Where a party seeks to adjourn a previously scheduled mediation or hearing, they must contact the Registrar as soon as the need arises. They must contact the other parties to seek their consent, and to discuss alternative dates for the rescheduling of the mediation or hearing.
The party making the request should contact the Registrar and provide the exceptional circumstances supporting the request and any alternative agreed upon dates. When the request is on short notice, the party must contact the Registrar by email or fax.
5As set out in the Practice Direction, and as confirmed in the Tribunal’s decisions, adjournments are only granted in exceptional circumstances. The Tribunal has explained its rationale for taking such positions in a number of cases including Vallentyne v. Royal Canadian Legion, 2009 HRTO 660. At para. 4, the Tribunal explained why, even when there is consent, an adjournment of a scheduled hearing will not be granted absent exceptional circumstances:
The Tribunal is committed to the fair, just and expeditious resolution of proceedings before it. It expects to receive thousands of applications each year. The Tribunal has a responsibility to ensure that public resources are used effectively to meet the demands of all parties before the Tribunal. Therefore, when an adjournment request is made, it is not only the interests of the parties to the particular proceedings must consider, but the fact that Tribunal time reserved for the resolution of those parties’ disputes will no longer be used. For that reason, among others, the Tribunal’s Information Bulletin on Scheduling of Hearings and Mediations, Rescheduling Requests and Requests for Adjournments indicates that even adjournment requests made on consent of the parties more than five [now fourteen] days after the hearing is scheduled may be denied. The Tribunal has balanced the interests of the parties in having hearings scheduled according to their and counsel’s availability with these broader interests by requiring that a party advise within five [now fourteen[ days that they are unavailable, and providing that requests for adjournment will not otherwise be granted, absent exceptional circumstances.
6In this case, the applicant provides no reasons for the adjournment that constitute exceptional circumstances. Accordingly, the applicant’s request for adjournment is denied.
Request for Summary Hearing
7The respondent requested a summary hearing in this matter, which is denied at this stage.
8If after the case management call, the respondent wishes to renew its request for a summary hearing in relation to any of the applicant’s claims, it may do so at the hearing.
9Pursuant to Rule 19A.5 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure, the Tribunal need not give reasons for a decision not to hold a summary hearing following a party’s request.
Disclosure Obligations
10As the Tribunal notified the parties in the May 6, 2016 Notice of Hearing in this matter, under Rule 16 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure, the applicant and respondent were obliged to each send to the Tribunal a Statement of Delivery by May 27, 2016 confirming that they had sent a copy of all arguably relevant documents in their possession (except those that are privileged) to the other party.
11It is now long past this deadline and no party has complied with the requirement to confirm to the Tribunal the delivery of the arguably relevant documents.
12In addition, the Notice of Hearing advised the parties that under Tribunal Rules 16 and 17, the parties were obliged to provide the following things by no later than August 5, 2016:
a. a list of the documents they intend to rely on at the hearing (these are the documents that you have chosen to put before the Tribunal from among the documents previously disclosed by both parties) – to one another and to the Tribunal;
b. copies of each of these documents for the Tribunal; and
c. a list of witnesses with witness statements setting out the intended evidence of each witness – to one another and to the Tribunal.
13It is now past this second deadline and no party has complied with the obligations regarding the exchange and filing of documents and witness statements.
14There are serious consequences for this case if the parties do not comply with their obligations under the Tribunal’s Rules, as set out below.
DIRECTIONS TO APPLICANT
15By no later than August 22, 2016, the applicant must deliver to the respondent her arguably relevant documents.
16By the same date, the applicant must deliver to the respondent and file with the Tribunal: (1) confirmation of delivery of her arguably relevant documents to the respondent; (2) a list and copy of